An Irritating Argument

[LifeOnaPlate]

I can't speak to your experiences but I can state that I have heard all of these arguments many times. If you insist on a specific source, you can look at Bushman's explanation of the first High Priesthood confirmations in RSR.

You think you've fairly represented the views of Richard Bushman in your off-hand opening post? Really? Further, as I said before, I have been quite involved in apologetics for a while now and am not familiar with anyone maintaining the weak positions you claim in the opening post. I've been tap dancing around asking for specific examples, but I'll go ahead and do so right now. I would like specific examples of what you are referring to. And I don't mean one-liners about "Richard Bushman's explanation of such-and-such;" that doesn't cut it. You've made a claim (that Bushman explained something in a certain way) and I disagree with the claim. In a civil conversation I believe it is on you, then, to substantiate your claim with specific examples. I mean quotes and references with analysis. I realize it takes a little extra time, but otherwise we are just hearing bald assertions. I don't really care to spend what free time I have discussing bald assertions, though.

In addition (I didn't want to get into this but since you are pushing so hard), I can tell you that I exchanged a series of emails recently with Kevin Barney regarding his Jewish Redactor Theory for the BoA. I like Kevin a lot, he is honest and bright and doesn't throw up smokescreens. I asked him why it was legitimate for a Jew living 2000 years ago to reinterpret Egyptian scenes but illegitimate for Joseph Smith to do so in 1835; i.e., why not eliminate the middle man? He agreed with this point and after some further discussion stated that he thought that Joseph Smith simply did not understand what he was doing. No offense to Kevin, but this strikes me as an explanation that people come to when they have exhausted all other explanations.

Again, I'd need to see the conversation. Did you share your thoughts with Kevin on this? If so, what was his response?

But at the same time, I don't personally care if Joseph didn't know every intricate detail of everything he ever revealed. I think your disconnect is in holding Joseph Smith to a higher standard than what he himself would like. Further, it seems when someone argues from the position that "Joseph wasn't omniscient" you take such an idea and turn it into a caricature like the ones you presented in the OP. I personally don't see that as a fair representation of any apologist's arguments that I have seen.

[Mortal Man]

You think you've fairly represented the views of Richard Bushman in your off-hand opening post? Really? Further, as I said before, I have been quite involved in apologetics for a while now and am not familiar with anyone maintaining the weak positions you claim in the opening post. I've been tap dancing around asking for specific examples, but I'll go ahead and do so right now. I would like specific examples of what you are referring to. And I don't mean one-liners about "Richard Bushman's explanation of such-and-such;" that doesn't cut it. You've made a claim (that Bushman explained something in a certain way) and I disagree with the claim. In a civil conversation I believe it is on you, then, to substantiate your claim with specific examples. I mean quotes and references with analysis.

RSR page 157, "Joseph ordained five men to the high priesthood, and Lyman Wight ordained eighteen others, including Joseph."

RSR page 157, "Joseph may have considered it prudent to say nothing about priesthood in the early years, or possibly he did not understand it himself."

RSR page 158, "...before 1831 men were called to church offices--elders, priests, and teachers--given authority, and licensed without reference to a bestowal of priesthood. At the June conference, the word "priesthood" was used and priesthood was bestowed as if it was an addition to previous authority."

RSR page 158 "...Joseph said that "the authority of the Melchisedek priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders.""

RSR page 158-159 "Joseph may not have realized that elders were part of the Melchizedek Priesthood already and were being ordained to the office of high priest rather than receiving the powers of the high priesthood. Although he understood the distinction by the 1840s, he seems to have fallen back into the confusion of those early years when he wrote about the ordinations. In this case, experience may have outrun comprehension. Because he knew so little about priesthood at the beginning, Joseph could no more grasp its meaning than he comprehended the full significance of the First Vision as a teenager. Although he understood such Church offices as teacher and elder, it took time to comprehend that the powers of priesthood were included in the authority that went with those offices."

I have provided these quotes not to criticize Bushman's analysis but simply to point out that he does occasionally appeal to Joseph's ignorance. In this particular case, I can't say that I disagree with Bushman's conclusions, in fact right now I cannot think of any better explanation of this issue. Nevertheless, I was hoping he would give a different explanation, one which I hadn't thought of.

As a gesture of good will, I have toned down the inflammatory comments in my OP. In return, perhaps you would be willing to provide your own answers to my original six questions. Since I don't have access to Dan Peterson's buzzer, you needn't fear giving any wrong answers.

[Daniel Peterson]

The apologetic answer here sucks rocks.

Who on earth has ever made it?

The arguments MM is complaining about ARE sucky arguments, if not downright misleading. And they shouldn't be used.

For the most part, they aren't used.

[LifeOnaPlate]

See what happens when you provide specifics? It works so much better that way!

I don't have time to go through your list. How about one?

Why did he give different accounts of the First Vision? "Because he didn't understand its full significance until many years later."

I would say Joseph's experience (like all of our experiences) change in relevance over time and in relation to changing contexts, etc. That JS understood or explained his first vision in different ways doesn't bother me in the least. To the contrary, I find studying the various accounts enlightening. Your sentence does not capture the meaning behind the claim, I think it warps it.

Thanks for the page numbers.

[Mortal Man]

Who on earth has ever made it?

For the most part, they aren't used.

Okay then, how about providing us with the real answers to the six questions?

[Mortal Man]

The arguments are sucky, which is why no one uses them. What is irritating is the allegation that we do use these arguments. I am sure that each of those arguments were made by someone somewhere at some point in time. But claiming that these are the basis of apologetics is, flatly, a straw man argument. It is this straw man that needs to be burned.

I will give you the same opportunity as everyone else; i.e., to answer the six questions without appealing to Joseph's ignorance.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'll take a stab at the first question (in addition to the one I already responded to about the first vision):

Why did he name the drumlin in Manchester the Hill Cumorah? "Because he mistook that hill for the one Mormon buried his records in."

Answer: He didn't name it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'll look at another one as well:

Why did he put horses in the BoM? "Because he didn't know what tapirs were."

The Book of Mormon is a translation. There are several options here. First, "loan-shifting" has occurred throughout history, as Mike Ash noted. For example, when the Greeks first encountered a large unfamiliar animal in the Nile they named it "hippopotamus" or "river horse." This isn't an argument that JS was an idiot, it's an argument about the nature of translation. Option 2: horses are not commonly mentioned in the Book of Mormon, most of the references are from the Isaiah portions. Horses aren't ridden, and they aren't apparently used for farm work or things JS's 19th century environment would have suggested. It is possible that horses were present but their remains have not been found. This is an archeological issue, not an issue of Joseph Smith being ignorant.

So we've covered the first vision, horses in the Book of Mormon, the priesthood, and the Hill Cumorah.

[Daniel Peterson]

Okay then, how about providing us with the real answers to the six questions?

We've been publishing on these things for years.

[Mortal Man]

I'll take a stab at the first question (in addition to the one I already responded to about the first vision):

Answer: He didn't name it.

Then why did the early saints start calling it Hill Cumorah?

To save time I will anticipate your response.

"Because some of the early saints were confused."

Okay then, who or what was the source of their confusion?

The same problem arises in Nibley's "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers." Nibley would have us believe that W. W. Phelps, Frederick G. Williams, Warren Parrish, Oliver Cowdery and Willard Richards all mistook the Hor Book of Breathings for the BoA but that Joseph did not. In my discussions with Kevin, I was pleased to hear that he has rejected Nibley's argument. Where on Earth would the scribes have gotten that idea if not from Joseph Smith?

[Mortal Man]

We've been publishing on these things for years.

And I've been reading the publications for years. Not all of them mind you, but enough to have seen the "Joseph's ignorance" argument many many times. Perhaps you could provide a link for any one of the questions that presents a better explanation than what I listed.

[Daniel Peterson]

And I've been reading your publications for years.

I'm afraid, given your risible summaries of our alleged arguments, that I have virtually no confidence in your ability (or willingness) to follow the arguments.

[Mortal Man]

I'll look at another one as well:

The Book of Mormon is a translation. There are several options here. First, "loan-shifting" has occurred throughout history, as Mike Ash noted. For example, when the Greeks first encountered a large unfamiliar animal in the Nile they named it "hippopotamus" or "river horse." This isn't an argument that JS was an idiot, it's an argument about the nature of translation. Option 2: horses are not commonly mentioned in the Book of Mormon, most of the references are from the Isaiah portions. Horses aren't ridden, and they aren't apparently used for farm work or things JS's 19th century environment would have suggested. It is possible that horses were present but their remains have not been found. This is an archeological issue, not an issue of Joseph Smith being ignorant.

The only problem with horses in the BoM is the strong suggestion that they pulled Lamoni's chariots. Were it not for that, you could get away with them being food animals.

So we've covered the first vision, horses in the Book of Mormon, the priesthood, and the Hill Cumorah.

Which confirms my opinion that of all the issues concerning church history and doctrine, the origin of the BoA is by far the most difficult to deal with. With the BoA you have to deal with evidence rather than lack of evidence.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And I've been reading your publications for years. Not all of them mind you, but enough to have seen the "Joseph's ignorance" argument many many times. Perhaps you could provide a link for any one of the questions that presents a better explanation than what I listed.

Perhaps you can provide a refrence were Dan specifically said that JS was ignorant of something. Lets look at it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The only problem with horses in the BoM is the strong suggestion that they pulled Lamoni's chariots.

Ofcorse it the text never says any thing about a horse pulling a chariot, and that is your preconceived notion that any time a horse and chariot are mentioned in any text that it is assumed that it is being pulled.

[Mortal Man]

I'm afraid, given your risible summaries of our alleged arguments, that I have virtually no confidence in your ability (or willingness) to follow the arguments.

Perhaps if you would be kind enough to provide me with with one of your arguments, one that is simple, i.e., way down at my level, then I could make some attempt to follow it.

[Zemah]

I have often heard apologists state that Joseph Smith did not understand what he was doing:

Why did he name the drumlin in Manchester the Hill Cumorah? "Because he mistook that hill for the one Mormon buried his records in."

Why did he put horses in the BoM? "Because he didn't know what tapirs were."

Why did he give different accounts of the First Vision? "Because he didn't understand its full significance until many years later."

Why did he ordain Elders before receiving or conferring the High Priesthood? "Because he didn't understand that Elder is an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood."

Why did he say that the BoA was written by Abraham's own hand upon papyrus? "Because he didn't realize that it was actually a Jewish redaction of the real BoA."

Why does the BoA refer to Facsimilie 1 "at the commencement of this record"? "Because JS didn't realize that the BoA was further into the scroll, after the breathing permit."

...and so on and so forth.

Silly Joseph.

This line of apologetics is weak for several reasons. Imagine what would happen if such reasoning were applied to other prophets.

QUESTION: Why did the Israelites wander in the wilderness?

RESPONSE: Because Moses was lost and unwilling to admit it. Fortunately with today's GPS units this could never happen.

The defense is essentially this, "Don't worry you guys, Joseph may have been a clueless country bumpkin but we've got some really smart professors now who can straighten out all his foul ups." Is it not a double standard to "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah" on the one hand, while dismissing him as hopelessly ignorant on the other? We marvel at the genius of the religious system he organized and then claim that he did not understand his own revelations?

When confronted with evidence for which you do not have a ready answer, you can say either of two things: "I don't know" or "Joseph didn't know..." The first requires humility and I have no trouble believing. The second requires me to believe that you have travelled back in time and read Joseph's mind.

Saying that "Joseph was human like the rest of us" is not the same as saying that he didn't understand his own revelations. When a scholar writes an original paper, do we not presume that he knows more about his subject than anyone else?. It is simply not valid to cherry pick the occasions when Joseph got it right and arbitrarily toss out the pits whenever it is suitable to claim he got it wrong.

All of it is right; the published Word found in the LDS canon is right. It does not matter what Joseph knew or did not know. The test of scripture is the result, not the means by which it arrives to us.

The questions that arise around or about Joseph Smith (like your Moses example) could be cause to question any prophet of God, but the true test is whether the word produced is truly of God.

Denouncing the messenger does not change the message.

Zemah

[ERayR]

Perhaps if you would be kind enough to provide me with with one of your arguments, one that is simple, i.e., way down at my level, then I could make some attempt to follow it.

With your penchant to misrepresent or misunderstand what you have been given I'm not sure that request can be fullfilled.

[Mortal Man]

Perhaps you can provide a refrence were Dan specifically said that JS was ignorant of something. Lets look at it.

Why are you all trying to make this into a personal battle between Dan and me? I have never stated that "Dan specifically said" anything. I have great respect for Dan. I am speaking about apologetics in general. And the apologists which I have named I also have high respect for. I am trying to help them make their arguments better. Talk about straw men. You are all making a straw man out of me personally.

[ttribe]

Why are you all trying to make this into a personal battle between Dan and me? I have never stated that "Dan specifically said" anything. I have great respect for Dan. I am speaking about apologetics in general. And the apologists which I have named I also have high respect for. I am trying to help them make their arguments better. Talk about straw men. You are all making a straw man out of me personally.

Ummm - remember this quote to Dan?

Not all of them mind you, but enough to have seen the "Joseph's ignorance" argument many many times.

It wasn't that long ago; you said it like three posts ago.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Then why did the early saints start calling it Hill Cumorah?

To save time I will anticipate your response.

"Because some of the early saints were confused."

Okay then, who or what was the source of their confusion?

The source? See Rex C. Reeve, Jr., and Richard O. Cowan, "The Hill Called Cumorah," in Regional Studies in LDS History: New York and Pennsylvania, edited by Larry C. Porter, Milton V. Backman, Jr., and Susan Easton Black (Provo, Utah: Department Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University, 1992), 71â??89 (see especially pp. 73â??74).

Basically, it was assumed that since the plates were recovered from that particular hill, it must have been Cumorah. The important little details are, by definition, important. Note that the Book of Mormon does not state that the plates of Mormon were buried in the Cumorah; in fact, it says exactly the opposite:

"And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon...made this record [the plates of Mormon] out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save [except] it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni." (Morm. 6:6)

As the FAIR wiki points out, this took place in approximately A.D. 385. Moroni did not bury the plates of Mormon until A.D. 421. During this 36-year period Moroni explained:

"[The Lamanites] put to death every Nephite that will not deny the Christ. And I, Moroni, will not deny the Christ; wherefore, I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life." (Moroni 1:3)

Moroni eventually buried the record, and since he was the one who also delivered it to JS, people assumed the record was found in the hill mentioned in the book. Their assumption doesn't make fact. As the FAIR wiki notes: "While we call the drumlin in New York 'Hill Cumorah' based on a usage initiated early in Church history (probably by Oliver Cowdery or W. W. Phelps), that does not necessarily make the two hills the same."

[LifeOnaPlate]

And I've been reading your publications for years. Not all of them mind you, but enough to have seen the "Joseph's ignorance" argument many many times. Perhaps you could provide a link for any one of the questions that presents a better explanation than what I listed.

Essentially, I get the feeling that anytime someone argues that Joseph at one point actually learned something (or overlooked something, or understood something differently than those who have the vantage point of over a hundred years in the future) you feel it is generally a weak apologetic rather than an attempt to glean from the historical record what we can regarding JS's developing understanding of the church or other issues.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The only problem with horses in the BoM is the strong suggestion that they pulled Lamoni's chariots. Were it not for that, you could get away with them being food animals.

Not to split hairs, but are they depicted as "pulling" Lamoni's chariots? Further, how common is such an occurrence, and further still, have any Mesoamerican specialists provided opinions on that issue? (hint for the last one: yes, Brant Gardner).

Which confirms my opinion that of all the issues concerning church history and doctrine, the origin of the BoA is by far the most difficult to deal with. With the BoA you have to deal with evidence rather than lack of evidence.

Bokovoy's been covering that well in another thread. As I don't have the necessary background to give an opinion that isn't simply parroting someone else's arguments on that particular issue, I'll refer you to that thread. (Though I do notice an awful lot of former members of the Church feel they are suddenly experts in Egyptology, and expect me to be as well. )

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208612853

[Zakuska]

Then why did the early saints start calling it Hill Cumorah?

To save time I will anticipate your response.

"Because some of the early saints were confused."

Okay then, who or what was the source of their confusion?

On my mission I taught quite a few 1st discusiions... Some people it took a long time for them to get the names of People with the Correct Story plots. Josephs own Mother Mixed up Moroni with Nephi. Confussion is quite easy for us Human types.

[Mortal Man]

Ummm - remember this quote to Dan?

It wasn't that long ago; you said it like three posts ago.

Once again, I was speaking about apologetics in general, not Dan specifically. He words his responses like I am talking about his personal publications, but I am not, or at least I am trying not to. You are all cheering your favorite gladiator and trying to provoke me to put up a fight.